• ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    3 days ago

    It doesn’t. EU doesn’t even protect its members. EU doesn’t have any army or common defense policy. Maybe you’re confusing it with NATO?

      • ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 days ago

        " This assistance can, for example, range from diplomatic support and technical or medical assistance to civilian or military aid, among others."

        So it’s “assistance”, not “defense” mechanism. Each member can decide what type of assistance they will provide but they are not mandated to “protect” anyone. That’s what NATO is for.

        • kossa@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          3 days ago

          The EU article is even stronger. NATO Article 5 says

          shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that […] each of them […] will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking […] such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force

          “deeming necessary” can be anything, really.

          The EU one states

          If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power

          Having an “obligation” and being obligated to use “all the means in their power” is stronger than the “deeming necessary” of the NATO.